Question 1. Is there adequate consideration for Chip Co s agreements above-described with Pam, Dave, Bob and Silicon, Inc.? Discuss.

Transcription

1 Question 1 Ted is the President of Chip Co, a small company that makes computer chips for the secondary personal computer market. In the regular course of Chip Co s business Ted did the following: Ted sent an to his daughter Pam, a Vice President of Chip Co, which stated: This is to confirm our conversation of the other day wherein you agreed to make your home garage available next week to Chip Co for storage of Chip Co items. You will be paid $5.00 per year. Pam ed back, stating, That s right, Dad; the garage is clean and ready for storage. Ted also sent an to Dave, a customer of Chip Co, which stated, We agree to replace our defective chip in your computer, but only if you agree not to bring any legal action against Chip Co. Dave sent a return stating that he agreed to these terms. Ted telephoned Bob, another customer of Chip Co, to confirm that Chip Co will send 100 computer chip units to Bob, who had already fully paid for the units, but only if Bob agreed to pay an additional 10% due to an increase in Chip Co s operating costs. Bob reluctantly agreed, as he needed the chips immediately. Ted wrote a letter to Silicon Inc., in which Chip Co offered to buy 10 tons of processed silicon during the coming year, at market price, should Chip Co need any silicon. Silicon Inc. responded, agreeing to sell all the silicon to Chip Co that it might want. Is there adequate consideration for Chip Co s agreements above-described with Pam, Dave, Bob and Silicon, Inc.? Discuss. 1

2 ANSWER A TO QUESTION 1 PAM v. TED Governing Law The governing law in this case is the common law, because the transaction involves a lease of land. Was there a Contract? A valid contract consists of a valid offer, acceptance, bargained-for consideration for which the law recognizes a duty and provides a remedy for breach. Here, there appears to be an offer, because Ted sent an to Pam to confirm the terms of there [sic] offer. Pam s response, That s right, appears to be an acceptance of the terms of the and confirmation of the offer. Further, the confirmation contained sufficient definite terms to clearly state the terms of the agreement. Therefore, a valid contract exists. Consideration Valid consideration consists of a bargained-for exchange between the parties. It consist[sic] of a legal detriment to the promisee (Pam), which is bargain for by the promisor (Ted). Generally, the court will not inquiry [sic] where the consideration appears to be minimal (nominal) or clearly one-sided. Further, consideration can consist of monetary value of forbearance of doing something that one has the legal right to do. Here, although the facts don t state the size of the garage, the consideration of $5.00 appears to be minimal or nominal given the average size of a garage. Despite this, $5.00 per year is very minimal and questions as to the adequacy of consideration paid. However, Ted could argue the fact that Chip Co ( Chip ) is a small company and part of the bargained-for exchange was Pam s interest in the success of Chip. Therefore, adequate consideration can be found. Defenses The statute of frauds ( SOF ) requires that a contract for an interest in land, including leases, be in w[r]iting. Further, any contract for which performance is impossible within one year is required to be in witting[sic]. Here, Pam could argue that there was not a witting[sic] that was signed by Ted, the party to be charged. Ted would argue that the was sent via the company and constitute[s] a sufficient witting[sic] to document the agreement and had sufficient terms to indicate the agreement. Because the contains an ability to verify that the was sent and provides evidence of the terms of the agreement, the court is likely to find 2

3 that the was a sufficient witting[sic] to comply with the witting[sic] requirement of the SOF. Therefore, this defense would not work. DAVE v. TED Governing law Here, the UCC is the governing law, as the transaction involves the sale of goods. Merchants A merchant is a person who deals in the type of goods involved in the transaction or holds themselves out as having special knowledge in the goods. Here, Ted is clearly a merchant, as he deals in the type of goods involved (chips). Contract See definition above. Here, an offer was clearly made because the sent by Ted to Dave indicated Ted s willingness to enter into an agreement. Such offer was clearly accepted by Dave via Dave s back to Ted. Therefore, a contract was formed. Consideration See definition above. Here, Ted is bargaining for Dave s agreement to not bring any legal action. The courts will not normally inquire as to the adequacy of such agreement absent Ted s knowledge that the claim was false. If the claim was false and Ted or Dave knew the claims was [sic] false, then such agreement to not bring any legal action would not be bargained for or represent legal detriment. Although the facts don t state that the claim was valid, if it is found that the claim was valid, then adequate consideration was provided. However, see preexisting duty below. Therefore, the court will find adequate consideration if the claim is valid and was bargained for in exchange for not bringing any legal action. Preexisting Duty A preexisting duty is a duty for which one is already legal[sic] required to do. Under the common law, any modification requires consideration. If no consideration is found, the court would likely find that such modification was not bargained for. However, the UCC allows modification without consideration, as long as the modification was made in good faith. 3

4 Here, Dave would argue that Ted was under a preexisting duty to replace the defective chips, because this a[sic] warranty issue. However, the facts don t indicate that Ted had given a warranty for the chips. Further, if such warranty had been disclaimed, not[sic] duty to fix the chips would exists[sic]. Absent these facts, there does not appear to be any requirement for Ted to fix the chips. Therefore, since the facts don t indicate that a warranty existed, Ted and Dave s agreement would appear to be a valid bargain-for exchange. BOB v. TED Governing Law UCC would govern (see above). Merchant See above. It appears that Bob is a merchant as well, because Bob is a customer and presumably the chips would be utilized in a product, especially given that the average consumer doesn t usually purchase 100 computer chips for personal use. Contract See definition above. Here, Ted telephoned to confirm what appears to already have been an agreement to send 100 chips. This is supported by the fact that Bob had fully paid. Modification As discussed above, merchants can modify an agreement absent consideration as long as 1) the parties agree and 2) the modification was made in good faith. Here, Ted s communication to Bob appeared to be a refusal to ship unless Bob agreed to the price increase. Although the facts state that Bob reluctantly agreed, the facts don t appear to indicate that the price increase was made in bad faith, because the facts show that the market price had increased. Bob would argue that this was in bad faith, because an increase in the market price was why Bob had entered into the agreement to protect from price. Bob could have rejected the increase and sued for damages, but didn t. Therefore, absent any evidence of bad faith on the part of Ted, valid consideration was obtained. State of Frauds ( SOF ) Sale of goods greater than $500 are required to be in witting[sic]. This includes modifications. Here, Ted telephone[sic] Bob and modified the agreement, which Bob accepted. The facts 4

5 don t support that a writing was obtained. As such, Bob could argue that the agreement was not valid because the modification was required to be in witting[sic] given that it involved the sale of goods. However, the facts don t state the price and is[sic] would have to be shown that the 10% increase was greater than $500. Therefore, if the modification was greater than $500, the[sic] Bob would be successful in claiming the SOF. SILICON INC. ( Silicon ) v. TED Governing Law UCC is the governing law. Merchant See above. Silicon appears to be a merchant as well, because they deal in the goods involved. Offer and Acceptance See definition above. Here, there is an offer made by Ted, which appears to have been accepted by Silicon. Consideration See definition above. If a promise doesn t really bind someone to perform, but states that such party can perform if they want, then such promise is considered to be illusory. Here, because Silicon s response Ted s[sic] offer to purchase 10 tons of silicon stated that they agreed to sell all the silicon to Chip Co that it might want appears to be illusory because it really doesn t bind Chip to purchase all of their requirements form[sic] Silicon. Ted s offer clearly manifests an intent to purchased[sic] 10 tons of silicon, at market price, should Chip need any silicon. Because Ted could but[sic] the silicon should it need to, it didn t bind Chip to purchase such amount. Therefore, no valid bargained-for consideration was given. Promissory estoppel Promissory estoppel will supply consideration up to the point to prevent an injustice if the promisor (Ted) should have known or knew that Silicon would rely on Ted s promise and did actually justifiably rely on Ted s promise. Here, the facts don t support that Silicon relied on Ted s promise (i.e., hire additional workers). All the facts state is Silicon s response to sell the silicon. Therefore, absent any evidence of detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel will not apply. 5

6 ANSWER B TO QUESTION 1 Is there adequate consideration to support the ChipCo - Pam agreement? 6

7 This agreement contemplates the rendering of a service (storage) and will therefore be governed by the general principals[sic] of contract law. Here, the parties have exchanged promises. Pam has agreed to provide her garage for use as a storage facility. Since Pam was under no obligation to provide has[sic] garage to ChipCo before the agreement was made, her promise is adequate consideration to support the agreement. ChipCo has promised to pay Pam %[sic]5.00 dollars a year in exchange for the use of her garage. ChipCo was formally under no obligation to pay Pam $5. so this would appear to also be good consideration for the promise. In this case, the dollar amount of the payment in[sic] nominal. Generally, the court will not weight[sic] the economic advantages of the consideration, so long as it was fairly bargained for. However, where the consideration is of such little value and where it appears that the consideration was merely recited, the court may find the consideration inadequate. Here, parties appear to have merely recited a sham consideration in order to make the appearance for a bargained-for exchange as opposed to a gratuitous offer. If Pam wished to avoid the obligation she could proceed under two theories. First, assuming that the $5. was never in fact paid, she could assert failure of consideration. Second, she could argue that the consideration was nominal and not truly bargained for. The fact that she and Ted (acting as an agent for ChipCo) are closely related tends to show that the offer was gratuitous in nature. However, storage space seems to be an odd gift to give, which would support the contention that the agreement was for a strictly business purpose. Conclusion If Pam wishes to avoid obligation she would probably prevail by pleading that the $5. was merely a recitation of sham consideration and that therefore her promise is unsupported and not binding. Consideration for the ChipCo - Dave agreement The subject matter of this agreement is a good; defined as anything mov[e]able at the time of identification to the contract, including crops and timber to be severed from the land and the unborn young of animals. A computer is a good. The repair of goods is a service and not covered by the UCC. This transaction, however, arises from the sale of the computer. As the original seller of the good, ChipCo remains liable to the buyer for its defective product. Therefore, the contract which this agreement 7

8 flowed from is to be analysed in light of the UCC. Relinquishment of a right as consideration Not doing something which one has a legal right to do before the agreement is consideration. Here, Dave gave up the right to bring a legal action against ChipCo. The facts tell us that the product sold to Dave contained a defect. While we do not have any express warranty to look at, all goods sold by merchant sellers come with an implied warranty of merchantability. In this case, the computer contained a defect. The implied warranty would cover a properly working computer, fit for its intended purpose. Since the computer was not fit for its intended purpose, Dave had a cause of action against ChipCo for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Relinquishment of that right is valuable consideration. Preexisting duty On the other hand, ChipCo was under an already existing duty to repair the computer or to respond with money damages in a breach of contract action. Some courts have found that relinquishing the right to respond in breach is consideration; no facts here would make a good argument for that. The efficiency of responding with money damages rather than repairing or replacing the product is not evident. Furthermore, the UCC favors the out-ofcourt resolution which would be for ChipCo to repair its product. Therefore, ChipCo promise[sic] to repair the chip will not be found to provide adequate consideration as ChipCo was under a preexisting duty to do so. Good faith modification under the UCC While at common law, any agreement to modify an existing contracts[sic] had to be supported by new consideration; the UCC allows a modification without new consideration, if made in good faith. Here, the good faith of ChipCo is questionable. ChipCo seems to have strong-armed a valuable right from Dave, in exchange for only doing what they were obligated to do anyway. It is unlikely that a reviewing court would find this modification agreement in good faith, even in the face of Dave s agreement to it. Therefore, the agreement will be unenforceable. Is there adequate consideration for the Bob - ChipCo agreement? In this case we have bilateral executory contract, fully performed on Bob s side. His 8

9 contract obligations have been fully discharged by his payment. Furthermore, his agreement to pay, and then paying, for computer chip units is good consideration, as he was obligated to buy them beforehand. Additionally, ChipCo s agreement to sell the chips is good consideration for the agreement. At issue here, again, is the subsequent modification of the existing enforceable contract. Good Faith As discussed above, the UCC allows a good faith modification of a contract without new consideration. However, both parties must agree to the change in terms. Here, we have ChipCo making a demand for more money. Bob was under no obligation to agree to pay the additional money. The resolution of this question will therefore turn on Bob s response. Had he made an unqualified agreement, and had ChipCo made the demand in good faith, then the modification would be enforceable. However, we are told that Bob reluctantly agreed because he needed the chips immediately. This would tend to show that Bob did not intend to modify the contract but only intended to receive the benefit of his original bargain. Therefore, Bob can assert a lack of good faith in modification and it will not be enforceable against him. Is there adequate consideration for ChipCo s agreement with Silicon? In this case we have what appears to be an illusory promise. ChipCo has offered to buy silicon should it need any and Silicon has agreed to sell all the silicon ChipCo might want. At first blush, ChipCo does not appear to be obligated to any greater extent than it was before the promise was made. Requirements Contracts Under the UCC, as well as at common law (Wood v. Lucy), business contracts such as this have implied good faith or best efforts. Requirements contracts are not illusory because the law regards them as being for as required in good faith. Here, ChipCo is not obligated to buy anything from Ted. However, if ChipCo comes to require silicone, a very likely event, it will be obligated to buy from Ted. Therefore, there is sufficient consideration to support ChipCo s promise with the addition of the good faith term. 9